MEGALITHIC SCIENCE: ANCIENT OR MODERN?

[Pages:8]MEGALITHIC SCIENCE: ANCIENT OR MODERN?

lan 0. Angell

Royal Holloway College, University of London, Eghani, Surrey, England.

Introdxiction

There is no fact in history which is not a judgment, no event which is not an inference. There is nothing whatever outside the historian's experience" (Oakeshctt, 1933,100). This statement is never more evident than when considering the many 'scientific' theories relating to the Stone Rings of the late Neolithic and early Bronze Ages. These theories are simply a sign of our times; the reflection of modem scientific motivation and aspiration in the mirror of the gast!

In recent years Megalithic Sites in general, and Stonehenge in particular, have been the centre of much controversy. Hawkins (1963), Hoyle (1966), and Colton and Martin (1966) have all examined the possibility that Stonehenge was an eclipse predictor; Newham has proposed a large number of 'significant' astronomical alignments. However, the outstanding name in the field of Kegalithic Science is undoubtedly Professor Alexander Thorn who has developed a cor:plete scientific and technological culture from his observations of the Megalithic sites in Britain, Ireland, and France (Thorn, 1967). He claims the existence of sophisticated astronomical measurement, and a calendar; but his most controversial proposal is the discovery of the Megalithic Yard which he insists remained constant'to within 0.003 feet of 2.72 feet during the whole period of construction, well over a thousand years. The Professor goes further by using this unit of measurement to produce complex geometrical constructions for many non-elliptical sites - he calls them egg-shaped rings and flattened circles. The author (Angell, 1976) has given a simpler alternative method (the 'Polygonal' method) for constructing the sanK shapes, and there are many, many more 'scientific' interpretations of these sites.

The sport of theorising on the purpose and construction of Megalithic sites is by no means a modem phenomenon, many non-scientific cultures had their own non-scientific myths - concerning the Devil, King Arthur or the Druids. Mention of these 'stone temples' was made by scholars in Ancient Greece and Rone; nore recently antiquaries like John Aubrey (1626-97) and William Stukeley (1687-1765) spent a lifetime under the fascination of these Stones and their legends. Indirectly, it is thanks to Stonehenge, via Inigo Jones's mistaken geometrical interpretation, that we have Piccadilly Circus today.

Sot to be outdone, modem 'alternative science' places a high regard on Stonehenge, classifying it in importance alongside the Pyramids, Atlantis and Flying Saucers.

Jacquetta Kawkes was right when she sunmed up this fascination for theorising about the Megalithic Era by saying "Every age has the Stonehenge it deserves or desires"!

Naturally there is no written evidence to support these aforementioned theories; no a-priori justification exists concerning the validity of any of them. 'Scientific' theories may appear to fit the facts but it must be appreciated that a 'fit' is firmly fixed in the context of twentieth century knowledge. Such theories were derived from a simple plausible idea being extended by the weight of our own scientific culture, which undoubtedly would be totally alien to the Britons of the last century let alone five millenia ago.

(o

To der-Jnstrate just ho? ccdeni experience may be reflected in a Si one Ring c^eory, this article will derive such 2 theory, describing each step of its derivation fron the initial eleoeatary idea (using computer and mathematical termnology to accentuate its twentieth cen-ury foundations), thus illustrating the author s interests in computing and geometry as well as the possibility that this new theor>- could have been used in the construction oi Stone Rings. It IS ob'/ious that without these interests the theory would never have been evolved, however, it is iaportact to keep in mind that this theory must not be rejected because of the way it is presented. It fits the facts as well as er.y other theory mentioned, and it is proposed as a serious candidate for Ring construction. The node of presentation is intended to ensure that the reader is aware of the limitations of any interpretation of Megalithic, or for that natter any other Archaeological renains. The acceptance of a theory is nerely a concensus of opinion, it is not a certificate of authenticity!

Th eory

One of the oore evident features of the large circles and individual standing stones is the shadows thrown by them. We therefore set about producing a theory relevant to Stone Rings which uses shadows.

It is obvious to those hacar. beings who see rather than just look, that not only does the length and direction of a shadow from a given object vary during the day (the sundial principle), but also when a directiioonn IS fixed, then the length of the shadow cast by an upright object in that direction will charge, day by day, throughout they year. Fig. I is a typical exai-ple of daily shadow movement on horizontal ground at different times of t.-.e year. To give an idea of the scale involved it shows the path of the shadow or the apex of a pyraaid (and assumes that we can plot these points even mside the body of the pyramid). Thus a point fixed in relation to a rod or standing stone, together with the knowledge of whether the shadow is increasing or decreasing at that tine of year, uniquely defines one of the two days in the year when the shadow touches that point. This observation ccyld account for t.le many standing stones in Britain; we will go further by ?sing this fact to develop a means of generating the egg-shaped rings and flattened circles proposed by Thoa.

Ve aay assume that the observations arc made at latitude X in a direction with aziKuth o (North - 0? or 360?, East = 90?, South - 180? etc.). After fixing a s=all red of unit length in horizontal ground (less than a metre or the overall dimension of the sitewould be enormous), we measure the length of its shadow each day in direction o. Naturally since the sun is not a point object m the sky. the shadow has inexact length - we assume that the umbra IS measured and igncre the peauc?ra. If the sun at the time of measurement has decimation i, then the true angular altitude of the centre of the sun a (ignoring refraction) is given by the formula:-

sin i - sin X sin o + cos \ cos a cos a.

Fcr each ? this is readily solved for o, which may then be adjusted for the angular wiath 01 the sun and for refraction, ?rtience the length of the shadow is cot a.

, }~:?'^^." '? *'" ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download